Congress passes drilling, fisheries bills in final days of session

By Hook and By Crook

Gasping and flopping like a landed fish, the Republican-led Congress passed an offshore-drilling measure during its final days. The legislation, passed by the House and Senate as part of a larger tax bill, will open 8.3 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and natural-gas exploration, with nearly 40 percent of royalties going to Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas. The victory jig was slightly muted by misty watercolored memories of a bigger, badder bill that failed earlier this year: "When it comes to passing important legislation around here," said Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.), "you learn to shoot for the stars in the hope that you might land on the moon." In other ocean-related news, Congress shot for the, uh, StarKist, overhauling U.S. fisheries rules. The updated Magnuson-Stevens Act requires regional councils to combat overfishing and endorses a cap-and-trade plan that would, as with pollution, allow oversteppers to buy credits from those with a modicum of self-restraint.

straight to the source: Reuters, Chris Baltimore, 09 Dec 2006

straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Zachary Coile, 09 Dec 2006

straight to the source: The Washington Post, Juliet Eilperin, 10 Dec 2006

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (2 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

State in Denial

>> claims of Bush administration censorship of climate researchers. >>

This process of denial is very apparent on government controlled web sites. No not by direct censorship, but indirectly by censure of the poster (scientist).

And the little minions of their organisation make sure the politically correct propaganda drowns out dissenting voices, by a process of slander trolling stalking or flaming. By shooting the messenger, the sheep are happy to go back to sleep.

George Orwell's book 1984 was nowhere near accurate enough to fathom this day and age.

>>> the fear of being demoted to chief swab licker.>>>

LOL, yes it would really be the pits to have no money at the time of the end of the world.
I am trying for the biggest heap, just before the end, LOL.

Client science is practiced by people with a mortgage, people who want/NEED the world to remain the same, who actually are planning their future in minute detail. It is not useful to instill fear and panic in the population by telling the truth. Who has the real truth...it is not a good idea to actually find out in this case

Of course the world can not end, can it?

POLL
who thinks an end to LIFE on Earth can be brought about by humans not doing anything about the status quo?????

I will be very surprised if even one person thought this.

Y'all just think there will be some changes, even drastic changes, but........

by Zarkov at 1:59 PM on 11 Dec 2006

IPCC Fourth Assessment

The Telegraph is a climate change denier. They are playing with IPCC numbers. Don't fall for it.
The IPCC best prediction of 3oC increase for 2X CO2 has not changed since 1990. IPCC 1990 assessment had it as 1.5 to 4.5.
The new 'leaked' report narrows the range to 2 C to 4.5 and states the most likely figure is 3oC. The lower number has more confidence than the upper.
It has been around 3oC for over 15 years.
The lower level has greater confidence that the upper.
2XCo2 could be as early as 2005 as emissions are accelerating.
The Fourth Assessment has is it that sea levels will rise between 14 cm and 43 cm by 2100.
The 2001 Assessment projected a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m.
So nothing has changed since Arrhenius calculated that global temperature would increase by 5oC for a doubling
of CO2- without a computer! With carbon cycle feedback it
will I think be 5oC.
The real question should be- what are we risking for our children and grandchildren? There is a 10% risk that the increase could be over 6oC. That's a risk that no sane human being would take.
Peter Carter.

by peterdcarter at 2:00 PM on 11 Dec 2006

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?